[JJ_SO]

That is the most silly post of you in a while. With either silly or bullcrap points. Don't do that.  :blink:

 

Not walking into the trap of going point by point, or making a real list of ergonomics issues of whatever mirrorless thing, as by now I know your style. But again, just don't do that... 

 

I disagree on "silly post" although I could bring in some samples were Nikon is worse or slightly better or Fuji is not helping much, although being mirrorless.

 

Nikon changing AF mode? Left finger, right hand both wheel fingers. Good luck with gloves.

 

Touchscreen on Fuji? Good luck with finding, even better luck with sensible menus on it - touchscreen per se can be "just another handicap" or also "great help".

 

X-T2 has a tiltable screen, but less useful than the old Nikon D5100 or G11 from Canon.

 

AF-mode change on Fuji: One of those wheels which are either too difficult or too easy to move. Except the top wheels. But the AF-selsctor is neither hard enough to move no defined in place. And then the lenses, some with clutch, some without, some focus by wire with no acceleration sensor and slow - which is a pain when using a 100-400.

 

But I'm sure, everybody's "must have ergononomics" list would have different topics. I don't want to be the designer to make a camera out of our lists. But I think, all manufacturers have different model series and should be more clear in the differences. It's not easy to get dedicated feature listings - I understand it would be very long lists, but I don't understand why we users need to do all the work. The feature list of my Yashica FX3 would be 10 rows or so, but I don't feel I'd need longer to get a picture with it than with a DSLR including all those settings.

 

As for the matte screen in discussion before: In theory BC would be right. If the flange distance from mount to sensor and to screen would be exactly the same - ON ANY given spot of screen and sensor - the screen could even compensate back or frontfocus. That's theory, in reality only LiveView on sensor level rules, indirect focussing methods remain second best.

 

There are far more variables in this equation, we should be much happier and grateful if the AF module sometimes hits bullseye.

[Brightcolours]

Two things,

 

1) Pretty sure some Canon DSLR had shims, no idea on 6D though.

2) Even if your focusing screen plane is perfectly aligned to the image sensor, along with the mirror, if your particular lens suffers from back/front focus with your particular camera, you can't compensate for that electronically. Which means if your Eg-S screen shows that you nailed the focus, you actually haven't. That's why I said what I said.

 

I had a 5D like that and figured out it would be worthless getting an Eg-S type focusing scren for that camera, I simply learned to rely on the focus confirmation beep instead. The lens with the massive front focus was a m42 mount Carl Zeiss, so I got an adapter with the EMF chip which let me dial in the required front focus microadjustment setting so that the beep would be accurate.

It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about? A lens can not front or back focus when it' projected image is in focus on the sensor.

[toni-a]

BC for whatever reason statements like "It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about " do not help.

However think you gave a very good definition of accurate focus that's when "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

That's what we are looking for but how would you or the camera know that "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

For mirrorless it's evident since you are using the sensor itself for an SLR autofocus sensors aren't the same as image sensor so you need alignment for each lens, also the focus screen needs alignment with the sensor so that your eyes know when "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

Got our point ?

[obican]

I don't think he wants to.

[Brightcolours]

BC for whatever reason statements like "It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about " do not help.

However think you gave a very good definition of accurate focus that's when "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

That's what we are looking for but how would you or the camera know that "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

For mirrorless it's evident since you are using the sensor itself for an SLR autofocus sensors aren't the same as image sensor so you need alignment for each lens, also the focus screen needs alignment with the sensor so that your eyes know when "projected image is in focus on the sensor"

Got our point ?

Toni, to be frank you have no point.

 

I have told you in this thead already a few times that the camera does not have to know if the image in in focus with manual focus, that the focus screens have a standard thickness and that they do not need "adjustment" or whatever, just like the sensor does not need shims. The distances do not change and have no play.

 

So, if the mirror is without issue, what looks in focus on the focus screen looks in focus on the image. It is a different story when using 3rd party focus screens, those do not necessarily have the right thickness and may need help getting there.

 

And I can't make it prettier than it is, obican's nr 2 point is not plain nonsense. Ie: makes no sense at all.

A lens can produce front/back focus with the AF sensor in three ways: the final step it takes in the AF  procedure (which is basically unchecked) is bigger or larger than the camera expects it to make, or the AF sensor is sensitive to a colour which it sees in focus, but the combined colours forming the image looks out of focus to our eyes because that colour the AF sensor looked at is in focus on a different plane than the others, or the lens suffers from focus shift (wide open it focusses on a different plane than stopped down).

[toni-a]

Ok ok as you wish, I give up.

We did our best, wishing you a very happy new year

[Brightcolours]

You could try to understand it. You write as if you understand something and I do not, but it is the other way around :ph34r: . All the best to you too for the new year 

[obican]

I still have no idea what part of "focusing inside the viewfinder visually may not give you accurate focus in the end" your arrogant mind can't comprehend with.

 

Oh look, shims!

[Brightcolours]

I still have no idea what part of "focusing inside the viewfinder visually may not give you accurate focus in the end" your arrogant mind can't comprehend with.

 

 

And we can be sure that it will not be cause by a "front or back focussing liens" that your silly mind introduced in your earlier post 

 

Introducing front/back focussing AF issues in a discussion about view finders and manual focus it still silly and strange.

[JJ_SO]

Having a camera without shims between focusing screen and it's housing can mean, it was on the upper edge of tolerance. So that no shim was necessary to get more or less proper focus.


Having the wrong thickness of those shims - and so far I haven't seen a model without them, except a Mamiya 645 super - means "front- or back focus. And I'm not telling this to BC, no point in wasting time to stubborn minds unable to admit ever "maybe I was wrong". So, if shims are not visible in a camera with exchangeable screens just means they are used on another place. And believe me, if a 5D has them, your cheaper 6D will not get away without. Finder, screen, mirror and sensor do have position tolerances, it's only in your world a missing part in the assembling process.